CAVC Case 92-1372: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 14, 1993 · FARLEY

This is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the federal court that reviews Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, one level above the Board. Court decisions can vacate, reverse, or affirm what the Board did.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.

2026 base rates, all ratings (veteran alone)
RatingMonthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA)
10%$180.42
20%$356.66
30%$552.47
40%$795.84
50%$1,132.90
60%$1,435.02
70%$1,808.45
80%$2,102.15
90%$2,362.30
100%$3,938.58
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Vacated / Affirmed
Decision Date
December 14, 1993
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

AnxietyPsychiatricBackHipSkinArthritis

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.

Issues on Appeal

AnxietyPsychiatricBackHipSkinArthritis

Why It Was Decided This Way

Additionally in 1984, the RO denied reopening of appellant's claim for malnutrition based on no new and material evidence, and denied service connection in the first instance for nervous breakdown since there existed no evidence of a nervous condition during service and a November 9, 1983, VA examination found no mental disease.

On July 29, 1992, the BVA denied reopening of appellant's claims for service connection for malnutrition, avitaminosis, psychiatric disability, and residuals of shell fragment to the left foot with traumatic neuritis since new and material evidence had not been submitted with respect to those claims, and further denied service connection for traumatic arthritis, helminthiasis, and residuals of anemia as these conditions were not shown to have been incurred in or aggravated during service.

The exception to this rule states that "[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim 3 which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.

Therefore, once a BVA decision becomes final under section 7104(b), absent new and material evidence presented or secured, the BVA cannot reopen or readjudicate the claim.

239, 244 (1993) (BVA reopening is unlawful when no new and material evidence has been submitted).

Whether evidence is new and material is a question of law this Court reviews de novo.

New and material evidence is not required, however, to reopen a claim of a former POW interned not less than thirty days for those diseases entitled to presumptive service connection when manifest to a degree of 10% or more anytime after active service.

Thereafter, the RO in 1984 determined that the evidence failed to show appellant had suffered from nervous breakdown to a compensable degree, based on the medical diagnosis rendered on a VA medical examination which found "no mental disease" on December 9, 1983, and found no new and material evidence on the malnutrition and avitaminosis claims.

Authorities Cited

Colvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGinnis v. BrownIn Thurber v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiMurphy v. DerwinskiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Sklar v. BrownSee Spencer v. BrownSee Suttmann v. BrownThompson v. DerwinskiTirpak v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.307(d)38 CFR 3.307(d) (1993)38 CFR 3.309(c) (1993)38 CFR 4.11738 USC 111038 USC 1112(b)38 USC 1112(b)(1)38 USC 1112(b)(12)38 USC 1112(b)(4)38 USC 1112(b)(8)38 USC 111338 USC 1113(a)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(b)

Denial Type

Credibility|Not Service Connected|Not New Material

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.